£3500 LIBEL ACTION: CROSSEXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22952, 21 May 1949, Page 6

£3500 LIBEL ACTION: CROSSEXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 20. ; The statement of the claim in the action brought in the Supreme Court by Leslie Edwards‘ seeking £3500 as damages from the New Zealand Press Association for alleged libel says that the Press Association message complained of was as follows:

“The names of four New ZeaUanders appear in a list of 500 of the : more important Communist leaders outside the Soviet Union compiled in an official report for the United jStates Government. They are Alexander Drennan, Leslie Edwards, Sidney Scott and Victor Wilcox.

1 “Of Drennan the report says that ■he and his wife are both Scottish. He is active as a speaker and in waterside strikes and was placed on (three years’' probation for sedition speeches and anti-war activities in 1940.

“Edwards is described as a prominent worker for the New Zealand Communist Party and the author of a number of anti-American and proSoviet editorials in the Southern Cross.

“Scott is said to devote his full time to party work. He began to go blind around 1937 and visited the U.S.S.R.. ostensibly for treatment, in 1939. He became totally blind in 1944.

"Of Wilcox it is noted that he is the national organiser for the New Zealand Communist Party, of which he was the national treasurer in 1946.'’ Inference Taken In cross-examination yesterday afternoon tne plaintiff said that he relied only on the word Communist to support his claim that the article inferred he was not a person jvho bore true allegiance to the Government or the British Commonwealth. For the suggestion that he did not respect the constitution he relied on the phrase “their (the Communists’) interpretation of history is obsolete and destructive.” He relied on no specific paragraph, the plaintiff said, for his claim that it was suggested he bore allegiance to a foreign power and that he would be a traitor to his own country, was an instigator of industrial unrest and that he used his journalistic skill for the propagation and furtherance of these objects He did not think the latter could be inferred from any statement. The plaintiff said he had been in organisations where there, had been Communists. He had worked in cooperation, not in friendship. He was prominent in the Society for Closer Relations with the U.S.S.R. and had been an executive member in 1947, and 1948 he had been on the editorial board of the society’s bulletin and had written one article for it. He was aware that the executive of the Labour Party resolved that the society was a Communist auxiliary. This decision had not been ratified by the conference. Still Member of Society The plaintiff said he was still a memof the Society for Close Relations with the U.S.S.R., but had resigned from the executive. After Mr. G. G. G. Watson, counsel for the Press Association, had quoted from editorials written by the plaintiff, Edwards denied that he was accustomed to using language that might be considered defamatory. He remembered referring to a Supreme Court judge as “an eminent jingo.” The plaintiff agreed that he had written an editorial in the Southern Cross regarding Mr . Randolph Churchill which led to a libel action. He had used the sort of language, he said, that political opponents used against one another. Mr. Watson: You give, in other words,-., journalistic hard knocks and expect to receive them? The plaintiff: Yes. His Honour, Sir Humphrey O’Leary, interrupted Mr. Watson, saying that he was asking questions which appeared to be intended to mitigate the damages. To put it bluntly counsel was saying: “The plaintiff is claiming damages for something said about him. Look at what he has said about somebody else.” Mr. Watson, His Honour suggested, was also going some distance towards justification. < Ruled Out by Court

Mr. Watson said that if he could show the plaintiff was in the habit of consorting with Communists and was an extreme left-winger it would bear on

the question as to whether the statements complained of were defamatory. His Honour said that he ruled otherwise.

In further cross-examination by Mr. Watson the plaintiff Edwards said he knew that the matter complained of was a summary by the Press Association of an official American report which he had seen. This report was of a sub-committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States. Mr. Watson: The report published by the Press Association was a fair summary? The plaintiff: It was anything but a fair summary.

The plaintiff quoted a passage from the first page of the report. This stated: “The data assembled here fail of perfection, therefore, but they are, nevertheless, felt to be the best that can be assembled and published at this time.” This had been omitted from the Press Association report, he said. With that exception it was a fair condensation of the official American report.

Edwards said that he remembered a letter from the United States Embassy in Wellington which said that, in the preparation of the report, the committee was assisted by its own staff of professional research assistants. w Mr. Watson: So that the complaint, if you have one, is primarily against that committee and the research assistants who arrived at these conclusions regarding yourself?

The plaintiff: At the bottom it must

It is the function of the Press Association to distribute any news item of public interest?-—Yes. News Value Denial

You would, no doubt, agree that the official document referred to is news of interest to people throughout the world? —It is not news in New Zealand that Drennan, Scott and Wilcox are Communists. ,

Is the whole of the document published in America a matter of interest at any rate throughout the democracies? —If it had been we would have heard of it from Reuter’s in America instead of from a special correspondent.

If you, as a jounalist in England or America, had come on this document listing the leading 500 Communists outside Russia, would you have thought it scoopy?—Once I had read the preamble. no. Another journalist might well have taken a different view?—The reasons which would influence him would do him little credit. So though this was a reasonable condensation of an American report, there was no reason for circulating it through the Press Association as a matter of news? —Except that the Southern Cross was mentioned as a Communist newspaper, the answer is no. There was no other point to the article. Asked again whether the report would have no value the plaintiff said: “No. It \*Hs stale stuff." Mr. Watson: Do you also agree that there is nothing in the Press Association condensation that does not appear in the original version of the report? The plaintiff: No. There is nothing.

So that you are really claiming from the Press Association £3500 for what you agree is a fair condensation of the American report?—That is my claim and that is the foundation.

Re-examined by his counsel, Mr. Trevor Henry, the plaintiff said the Society for Closer Relations with the U.S.S.R. started during the war. Those behind its inception were people like the Rev. P. Parris, Mr. H. Atmore and Mr. C. G. Scrimgeour. 'lt had the blessing of men like Mr. W. Nash and Mr. H. E. Holland. The society was concerned with the development of economic and cultural relations with Russia. The plaintiff said he had addressed meetings for the society. He said until recently several Labour Party members of Parliament had been members of the society. It recently had been concerned with efforts to promote a trade pact with Russia. The plaintiff said he had written editorials which could be regarded as pro-American and anti-Soviet. When a former editor of the Southern Cross, Robert Harper, was called and questioned by counsel for the plaintiff about the plaintiff’s reputation as a journalist. Mr. Watson objected. After submissions by Mr. Henry, His Honour said that he did not think the evidence sought was relevant, or necessary. Mr. Henry then closed the case. His Honour said he would examine a submission by Mr. Watson that the claim regarding innuendo should be struck out.